On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 9:36 AM Bishop Bettini wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:58 AM, David Walker
> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to extend the vote through Sunday evening in the event anyone had
>> reservations based on potential performance impact. The RFC is currently
>> sitting 15-0 in favor.
>
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:58 AM, David Walker wrote:
> I'd like to extend the vote through Sunday evening in the event anyone had
> reservations based on potential performance impact. The RFC is currently
> sitting 15-0 in favor.
>
I'd recommend extending the original end date by a week, since
Hi Internals,
My original time for vote ending was yesterday, however Yasuo requested I
provide some benchmarking stats to see performance impact. I apologize I
wasn't able to provide the information sooner, I was off getting married.
I'd like to extend the vote through Sunday evening in the even
Le 16/08/2016 à 17:55, David Walker a écrit :
I'd like to go ahead and open up the RFC to voting to the scope
that it is written.
Hi,
At AFUP, we would be +1 on this RFC.
Basically: it could/will help detect problems, and the behavior change
should not cause too many bc-breaks (actually, whe
Hi David,
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:55 AM, David Walker wrote:
> I raised this concept a couple weeks ago to a couple +1's. Discussion was
> held mostly upon the PR [1], and I went through and documented within the
> RFC [2]. I'd like to go ahead and open up the RFC to voting to the scope
> th
Will up the ante: I wasn't sure the RFC page on voting didn't really define
this, I have no probs with 2/3.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:13 AM Levi Morrison wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Dan Ackroyd
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 16 Aug 2016, at 16:55, David Walker wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd like
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Dan Ackroyd
wrote:
>
> > On 16 Aug 2016, at 16:55, David Walker wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to go ahead and open up the RFC to voting to the scope
> > that it is written.
>
> Hi David,
>
> Although I will almost certainly be voting yes, the vote does need 2/3's
> to
> On 16 Aug 2016, at 16:55, David Walker wrote:
>
> I'd like to go ahead and open up the RFC to voting to the scope
> that it is written.
Hi David,
Although I will almost certainly be voting yes, the vote does need 2/3's to
pass.
All language changes require that, even if no syntax is change
Hi all,
I raised this concept a couple weeks ago to a couple +1's. Discussion was
held mostly upon the PR [1], and I went through and documented within the
RFC [2]. I'd like to go ahead and open up the RFC to voting to the scope
that it is written.
--
Dave
[1] https://github.com/php/php-src/pu
